Section 153C: amended trigger applies if seized material is received post amendment, widening third party assessment scope.
The substituted text widens the jurisdictional trigger for third party assessments from strict ownership to where books or documents "pertain to" or contain information that "relates to" the other person; the first proviso's deeming fiction makes the date of receipt of seized material by the other person's Assessing Officer the operative reference point, so if receipt, satisfaction and issuance of notice occur after the amendment, the amended provision governs, subject to the requirement of recorded satisfaction that the material bears on determination of total income.

Transfer pricing assessments: outer statutory limitation governs final orders; DRP deadlines do not enlarge the overall limitation.
The tribunal permitted admission of additional legal grounds based on facts on record and held that the outer statutory limitation governs final assessments in eligible-assessee transfer pricing cases. The dispute-resolution procedural deadline requires prompt action after directions but does not enlarge the overall limitation; statutory extension available for transfer pricing references is to be applied to the outer limit, and external judicial limitation extensions do not extend the time for completing original assessments.

Digital material recovered in a third party search cannot alone justify invoking Section 153C without a direct nexus to the non searched person.
Section 153C jurisdiction requires seized or requisitioned books of account or documents from a search that relate to or pertain to a non searched person; digital images recovered in a third party search that did not name or connect the petitioners could not sustain Section 153C. The Assessing Officer's reliance on post search forms, voluntary supply of documents, public domain inquiries, and an inferential consideration mismatch rendered the recorded satisfaction de hors the statutory trigger, allowing writ relief for jurisdictional defect.

Unsecured loans through banking channels cannot be treated as unexplained credits absent transaction specific incriminating material.
Unsecured bank routed loans cannot be treated as unexplained credits where the assessee produced confirmations, lender bank statements, audited accounts and tax filings, and the Assessing Officer relied chiefly on uncorroborated third party search statements or administrative press releases without transaction specific incriminating material. For years prior to the Finance Act, 2022 amendment, a generalized source of source obligation for loan credits is not mandated; repayments in the lender's account are distinct from fresh upstream borrowings. Appellate authorities may independently verify facts under their powers if the AO is given opportunity to respond.

Reassessment jurisdiction: both JAO and FAO held to have concurrent authority, pending apex resolution of the faceless regime.
The Delhi High Court holds that both JAO and FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment under Section 148, construing Section 151A as administrative/enabling rather than jurisdiction-extinguishing. It reasons that routine SLP dismissals do not automatically create binding Article 141 precedent to overturn a coordinate-bench High Court view, and declines to treat the Delhi precedent as per incuriam absent a contrary Supreme Court ratio; interim apex stays are case-specific and do not displace the Delhi position.

Search assessments under section 153A permit full reassessment for abated years but limit reopened completed years to incriminating search material.
Section 153A's assessment power is search-linked: for abated years the AO may reassess total income afresh, but for completed/unabated years additions under section 153A are permissible only where specific incriminating material relating to that year is found during the search; absent such material, disturbance of a completed assessment must proceed, if at all, under sections 147-148 subject to their conditions.

Section 143(2) notices not following CBDT formats invalidate ensuing scrutiny assessments; computer generation does not cure the defect.
A scrutiny notice that does not conform to CBDT-prescribed formats-specifically by failing to specify whether selection is for limited, complete, or compulsory manual scrutiny-is not a valid jurisdictional notice; non compliance with the binding CBDT Instruction vitiates the Assessing Officer's authority and renders any consequent scrutiny assessment void ab initio. Computer generation of the notice does not cure the defect. A pure legal challenge to such notice validity may be admitted at the appellate stage where no new facts are required.

Aircraft leases with no purchase option and retained lessor title remain operating leases, not interest-bearing financings.
Where aircraft lease documentation preserves legal title in the lessor, imposes a return obligation without any purchase option or residual-payment mechanism, and regulatory treatment aligns with operating-lease norms, the arrangement constitutes an operating lease; absent an enforceable transfer of ownership to the lessee at term end, lease rentals cannot be re-characterised as interest for treaty purposes merely because of lease tenure or finance-like pricing.

Aircraft leasing: treaty text treats rental income as taxable in the lessor's residence when aircraft form part of international traffic.
Whether leased aircraft create a fixed place Permanent Establishment depends on the disposal test: operational control and the right to use and conduct business from the place must vest in the enterprise; mere ownership and protective inspection or repossession rights do not suffice. Profit attribution to any alleged PE requires a FAR based arm's length analysis under Article 7(2), and Article 8(1)'s express inclusion of "operation or rental" covers rental income from aircraft forming part of a fleet used in international traffic, allocating taxing rights to the State of residence.

Aircraft leasing: MLI PPT not applicable without section 90(1) notification; operating leases and Article 8(1) allocate rental tax to Ireland.
The Tribunal ruled that Articles 6-7 of the MLI cannot be applied against the India-Ireland DTAA without a specific section 90(1) notification; alternatively, the Revenue failed to show PPT-based abuse. Contractual and regulatory analysis classified the transactions as operating leases; no fixed place PE existed in India; and Article 8(1) allocates taxing rights on rental of aircraft in international traffic to Ireland.

Income tax revisional jurisdiction: if AO investigated, PCIT must decide merits or record specific investigative failure, not remand.
Where the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation, the revisional authority cannot remand the assessment on a generic claim of inadequate enquiry; it must either record an abject failure to investigate with specific findings or decide the issue on merits in the revisional order and demonstrate error and prejudice.

Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.

Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.

Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.

Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.

Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.

Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.

Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.

Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.

Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.